On Mar 1, 2008, at 08:56, Matthew Ross wrote:

On Mar 1, 2008, at 7:30 AM, js wrote:

...

As you know, current apache2 port uses /opt/local/apache2 as a prefix. This is a bit different from other ports using /opt/local as a prefix. This problem always confused me, so I think it would be nice if it changed to use the same prefix. This change, however, would need a lot of work, like changing paths inside the httpd.conf, but if you'd like this idea, I'd be willing to help to get it done.

Could you please give me some comments/suggestions on this?

I have been wanting this for a long time. If I were you, I would look at patching the config.layout with a new layout. You can then configure with --enable-layout=LAYOUT. I believe this takes care of the paths in the default httpd.conf file for you.

Before anyone does anything, I'd like to know why you want this change. Let's figure out the pros and cons. A con would be that all ports that depend on apache2 would have to be checked. They may have hard-coded the location where apache2 puts its files now. Also, all existing users of apache2 would have to move their httpd.conf files to the new location, and maybe update paths in it. Anyone who just runs "sudo port upgrade apache2" will find their web server suddenly broken. Note that the apache port has a variant "apache_layout" which puts files in a different place than usual. I think this is problematic because some ports that depend on apache assume that the apache port is installed either with or without this variant, and don't work in the other case. There should be no such variant; the port should just install files in a single place. The apache, apache2 and apache20 ports should be kept in sync if possible. The apache port should be able to coexist with either the apache2 or the apache20 port. Currently, they cannot coexist: $ sudo port activate apache Password: ---> Activating apache Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/share/man/man1/ dbmmanage.1.gz is being used by the active apache2 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use the -f flag to force the activation. $

js wrote:

...

Before anyone does anything, I'd like to know why you want this change.

Consistency, period. When I upgraded from apache1 to apache2, it surprized me that there is no conf dir in /opt/local/etc and apachectl is in /opt/local/apache2/bin/.

I agree. Even more, the current apache2 layout violates the mtree which should be avoided.

...

Let's figure out the pros and cons.

A con would be that all ports that depend on apache2 would have to be checked. They may have hard-coded the location where apache2 puts its files now.

Also, all existing users of apache2 would have to move their httpd.conf files to the new location, and maybe update paths in it. Anyone who just runs "sudo port upgrade apache2" will find their web server suddenly broken.

Agreed, but an easy migration script that handling this job would be ease the impact.

Also present some ui_msg how to do it. Isn't it just a cp from the old to the new location? Also, users have always been responsible for the config themself as they have to copy it from httpd.conf.sample to httpd.conf at the moment. Even if it is "suddenly broken", they can go back by using port deactivate/activate as described in the guide.

...

Note that the apache port has a variant "apache_layout" which puts files in a different place than usual. I think this is problematic because some ports that depend on apache assume that the apache port is installed either with or without this variant, and don't work in the other case. There should be no such variant; the port should just install files in a single place.

I think options are good. I remember once you disagreed this idea, but this is not a point of discussion. Let's skip this.

File locations should not be changed by variants. apache +apache_layout violates the mtree and does not even declare that.

...

The apache, apache2 and apache20 ports should be kept in sync if possible.

The apache port should be able to coexist with either the apache2 or the apache20 port. Currently, they cannot coexist:

$ sudo port activate apache Password: ---> Activating apache Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/share/man/man1/ dbmmanage.1.gz is being used by the active apache2 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use the -f flag to force the activation. $

suffix would fix this issue.

Do you mean dbmmanage.1{apache,apache20,apache2}.gz? That would be good. Then you can read the man pages by using e.g. man 1apache2 dbmmanage. Rainer

js wrote:

...

Do you mean dbmmanage.1{apache,apache20,apache2}.gz? That would be good. Then you can read the man pages by using e.g. man 1apache2 dbmmanage.

I feel a bit odd, though. I prefer python's style. - /opt/local/share/man/man1/python2.5.1.gz - /opt/local/share/man/man1/python2.4.1.gz

Which would also be a bit odd. If I would have to type `man dbmmanage2' I would expect a function with that name. But it is still dbmmanage(). The way I proposed is common, and is for example used for OpenSSL by Apple (/usr/share/man/man3/*3ssl*) as it also contains conflicting manual pages.

Anyway, this issue is not a point here. Let's get back to the apache2's problem.

I seems more people's having the same frustration with this. Does this mean we can change apache2 port as it's supposed to be?

I don't see objections, so go on. Rainer